Sharkey is an uncrowned champion because he beat a middleweight McCoy, a super middle Choynski, Ruhlin and Corbett.Sharkey was a dirty, crude ,swarmer who lacked defence and science, yet he stopped Corbett who you call ,"one of the greatest boxers ever to live". Which of Corbett's 11 wins leads you to call him this? That's three times I've asked you now. Walcott was not a great heavyweight imo but I would bet my house he would beat the **** out of Corbett who has a resume that compares with Charles Martin's!
Rich, Those who lived in the times in many cases felt Fitz and Corbett were better than Louis and all of his opponents and Marciano and all of his opponents. They were there and this is what they said. So you can accept it or argue without the films to prove your point. In the 1950's there was a survey of 12 historians Jeffries came out number one. Almost all of the top fighters of the times. Sharkey, Corbett, Burns, Langford, and Dempsey said Jeffries was the best. Johnson called him the greatest. The top fighters of Jeffries day were lighter. Yes. Guys trained down. There were no Peds. They could not afford extra weight and go 20 rounds or more. It's interesting to note that the heavier fighters Jeffries fought ( Monroe, Jackson, Kennedy and Ruhlin ) did not last as long.
Wrong! His own people said it was Corbett's best ring effort. They fought in a 25 x 25 huge ring, advantage Corbett. Fitz was not past his prime either. Look at who he beat before and after losing only to Jeffries. I'm a bit busy now. More later
Durango Democrat "The finishing blow came suddenly and was a startling surprise. Corbett had been making a wonderful battle. His defense was absolutely perfect, and while he was lacking in strength, he had more than held his own and stood an excellent chance of winning the fight had it gone the limit. He had not been badly punished and had managed to mark his man severely. The winning punch was a short left to the jaw. Corbett dropped like weight and was clear out. Jeffries showed his ability to take punishment at any distance and hard. He was clearly outboxed and at times was made to look like a novice. The crowd, which numbered fully eight thousand, was with Corbett and his defeat fell upon a silent crowd. There were cheers for him when he revived and left the ring, and he was generally given more consideration than the victor. Corbett is still a factor in pugilistic fame. He has regained much of his old time form. The battle was clean and it is doubtful if there was a single infraction of the rules." Notice how it said "He has regained much of his old time form" Much but not all. That suggests he is past prime aka not prime. Fitz was 39 and CLEARLY past prime according to resume. He hadn't even fought in 2 years. Lets not reject reality, a fighter that doesn't fight for 2 years loses something. That is obvious. Being 39 years old doesn't help either. A man ages naturally and loses something unless the film says otherwise. We don't have the privilege of film on Fitz from the Jeffries fight or much from other fights to compare. Jersey Joe Walcott is just about the only fighter I have seen who was as good at the end of his career as he was during the best part of his career. Do you honestly think that prime Fitz would have lost to O'brien because of a cramp? Hell to the naw naw. He beat him by newpaper decision the first time. I would bet my house that prime Fitz knocks O'brien cold.
Rich, Jeffries knocked the out twice. 10 counts. These were hall of fame fighters Didn't billy conn at 167 pounds work Louis over and stun him? How about Henry Cooper flooring and nearly Koing Ali. Or Doug Jones losing via narrow decision to Ali. I picked two men here who many view as 1st and 2nd best of all time. Louis was kod by sub 200 pound man...twice. Fitz and Corbett were better than conn, Cooper or Jones. Before I go further do you think Joshua cleans ups up all in history under 215 pounds or not?
33 year old Corbett and 39 year old Fitz were not better than prime Billy Conn. The other two were pre prime Ali. Jeffries was at his absolute best against Corbett and Fitz.
[QUOTE="Mr.DagoWop Fitz was 39 and CLEARLY past prime according to resume. He hadn't even fought in 2 years. Lets not reject reality, a fighter that doesn't fight for 2 years loses something. That is obvious. Being 39 years old doesn't help either. A man ages naturally and loses something unless the film says otherwise. We don't have the privilege of film on Fitz from the Jeffries fight or much from other fights to compare. Jersey Joe Walcott is just about the only fighter I have seen who was as good at the end of his career as he was during the best part of his career. Do you honestly think that prime Fitz would have lost to O'brien because of a cramp? Hell to the naw naw. He beat him by newpaper decision the first time. I would bet my house that prime Fitz knocks O'brien cold. [/QUOTE] Was he past his prime? My definition of a past his prime fighter is when he starts to lose fights he would have won in his prime. Fair enough? Take note post the second Jeffries match, Fitz beat Hall of Fame light Jack Gardner and Jack O'Brien. If he was shot, he would not have done this! Yet the wins are on his resume. Clearly, he had something left 2-3 years after his second loss to Jeffries and happened to kill a man from boxing in another fight. Post the first Jeffries match, Fitz beat Sharkey and Ruhlin in style. He was as good as ever. The logical conclusion is Fitz was in his prime for the first match with Jeffries, with the second maybe being slightly past his prime. Furthermore, it is likely Fitz tampered with his gloves in the 2nd Jeffries fight. The first fight between the two was not very close. Jeffries won relatively easily. Fighters like Hopkins, Walcott, and Moore had some of their best efforts past age 36, didn't they? Yep, and so did Fitz.
I like the cartoon! If I were to ask you who the best basketball player of your time is, you'd likely say Mike Jordan. Well, from 1890-1950, those alive often said Jeffries...most of the champions fighters from 1892-1925 all said, Jeffries. Do you think they were all wrong? If I were to ask you who is the best heavyweight boxer of all time, you'd say Ali. But what if the only clear film of Ali you saw was vs. Larry Holmes where he didn't win 30 seconds of any round? Therein lies the trouble with those unfamiliar with Jeffries. The trouble is there aren't many films of Jeffries in his prime and the film we have is not very clear. The training/sparring film in 1901 is clear and it's a revelation. Have you seen it? If you follow he threads where an older film that is cleared up, you'll see some revelations. Today Jeffries would be 230 pounds, and even back then he had some impressive tale of the tape measurements, bigger legs, chest, and neck in comparison to Joshua, possible a bigger fist too. Give him a better trainer and who knows what type of force he would be. Or give Joshua a 1900 trainer and he's curtains. Finally, Jeffries was among the best athletes to hold the championship, among the most durable, and among the best punchers. Agile and fast handed according to primary sources as we'll.
Johnson didn't call Jeffries the greatest,he said the best heavyweight before him was Fitzsimmons,Langford said Dempsey was the best heavyweight he ever saw him and Johnson . Munro was a palooka, Kennedy was a sparring partner. Jackson was a walking shell, a consumptive alcoholic wreck at 37 years old.Ruhlin had been ruined by Fitzsimmons.
Yes, I'd probably say Michael Jordan because I don't watch basketball at all unless it is the championships. From 1890-1950 I'd think you'd find that most people thought of Jack Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight of all time. 1892-1925 isn't a big margin in heavyweight history. Dempsey hadn't even retired yet. Of course they are going to say Jeffries. Didn't Langford say Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight he had ever seen? I'd probably say the greatest heavyweight of all time was Louis or Dempsey. But I get your point. We have footage of Jeffries against Ruhlin as well. A sub par contender. I didn't see anything special. He proved in the Johnson fight that he couldn't cut off the ring. Probably why he had so much problems with Corbett. Yes, I have seen the training film of Jeffries. Again, he looks like a good fighter but ATG? No. It's just training, everyone looks good in training. Especially if it is filmed in that time period. I doubt they would have taken the time to film something like Training unless Jeffries was going to look good. Jeffries would probably be huge today but I don't really like to argue a version of Jeffries like that when talking about h2h match ups across eras. I prefer to argue the fighter that they were. From the footage I have seen, Jeffries doesn't look that fast. His punch is overrated, he fought guys he outweighed by 40-50 lbs and took way too long to get 'em out. Do you honestly think that Corbett and Fitz would go 23 rds and 8 rds respectively with a guy like Foreman, Tyson, or Liston? Not prime.
No they wouldn't. Johnson named Fitzsimmons as the best before him.Langford named Dempsey and Johnson,Tunney named Dempsey. Anyone have Jeffries in their top ten today? Joshua is 6'6" 250lbs,his reach is 82", chest 47" ,biceps 19" neck 18",he is significantly bigger than Jeffries.